Evidence of innocence

[Greenway]

Sneaking away from Paul was never an option for Lechmere: whether or not he was the killer. Paul - a fellow carman - could quite possibly have identified the vocation of Lechmere, and eventually they would find him. If Lechmere was not the killer, he still would want to go along with Paul and make certain Paul didn't embellish anything.

It was Paul, however, who proposed seeking a PC - not Lechmere.

If Lechmere had carried on walking to work when he first saw Paul I don't think the police would have been able to identify him. All you've got at very best is an occupation and an approximate height - a description applicable to hundreds if not thousands of men. How do the police ID Lechmere from that? If he's interviewed he just has to say he didn't walk down that street on his way to work - how do they prove otherwise?

[Fiver]

The argument contrary to this point is that it would render naked the wounds to her neck and belly.

The wounds were never apparent to Paul - the lighting of course was poor. They were certainly not displayed in full Ripper style, and there was also the neck wound. If Paul, in an act of decency attempted to cover a bit more her thighs, that doesn't change the atypical manner in which JtR left the body..

JTR did not leave Polly Nichols body in an "atypical" manner. that is one of many errors Fisherman makes in describing events.

"Witness went with him, and saw a woman lying right across the gateway. Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." - Robert Paul

[Fiver]

But an interesting point here, that people again have missed:

Nowhere in the description of Lechmere's actions does he take a passive course: he advances to meet and stop Paul; he apparently chooses to be the one to go up to PC Mizen and do the explaining; he decides to approach the police once Paul's story goes to the press; he even refuses to prop up the body - assuming that that happened.

If Lechmere lied about Paul suggesting that they prop up Nichols, then Paul would have known Lechmere was lying. Paul never said Lechmere was lying, so either Lechmere was telling the truth or Paul chose to be an accessory and hide the truth.

So either Paul suggested propping up Nichols body or Paul deliberately withheld evidence to protect a stranger.

Only one of those options is credible.

The only passive thing he does in the whole course of affairs is let Paul be the one to examine the body.

You are flat out wrong here. Lechmere's account makes it clear that he did examine the body.

"They both crossed over to the body, and witness took hold of the woman's hands, which were cold and limp. Witness said, "I believe she is dead." He touched her face, which felt warm." - Charles Lechmere

If he was the killer, he might have contemplated the opportunity to slash Paul's throat. I would guess Paul, out of precaution, kept one eye on Lechmere during his examination of the body.

This is speculation based on you assuming CAL was JTR. It illustrates your bias, nothing more.

At any rate, it is at variance to his typical behavior within his involvement in this incident.

If being passive was "at variance to his typical behavior" for Lechmere, then being aggressive was "at variance to his typical behavior for Paul.

Yet you don't assume that variance was a sign of Robert Paul being JTR. Your double standard is rather blatant.

[Fiver]

Facts are things to be combined and interpreted, correctly or incorrectly, towards some attempt at a rational explanation. The central fact here is that no one was ever brought to trial on evidence of being the Ripper. Case closed, lets all go home.

And taking sis own advice, Newbie never posted again on this forum.

Oh wait, he just kept posting. Repeatedly.

[Fiver]

Sneaking away from Paul was never an option for Lechmere: whether or not he was the killer. Paul - a fellow carman - could quite possibly have identified the vocation of Lechmere, and eventually they would find him.

Even PC Mizen, not the brightest bulb on the tree, immediately recognized that CAL was a carman based on how he was dressed. There was no chance of hiding his vocation, but the 1891 Census lists over 150,000 carmen in England. Hiding his identity would have been simple, just never come forward and alter his route to work.


Sneaking away from Paul was an option before Paul reached Nichols body. It would have been the smart thing for the killer to do.

Separating from Paul before they found a police officer would have been easy - Lechmere would have just had to say it would improve their chances of finding a policeman sooner. Separating would have been the smart thing for the killer to do.

If Lechmere was not the killer, he still would want to go along with Paul and make certain Paul didn't embellish anything.

This makes no sense. Lechmere, innocent or guilty, would have no reason to suspect Paul would embellish the incident. And the killer would have been just fine with Paul embellishing the incident - the more false things that Paul said, the harder it would be for the police to determine the truth.

It was Paul, however, who proposed seeking a PC - not Lechmere.

Back in Post #2905 you said that Lechmere "apparently chooses to be the one to go up to PC Mizen and do the explaining".

It's Schroderingers Suspect again - you simultaneously believe Lechmere did and did not take the lead about contacting a police constable and you assume both of these contradictory views prove Lechmer was guilty.

[Fiver]

It was Paul, however, who proposed seeking a PC - not Lechmere.

Your statement is just as false as when Fisherman posted it. Robert Paul still contradicts Fisherman.

"They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met. He could not see whether the clothes were torn, and did not feel any other part of her body except the hands and face. They looked to see if there was a constable, but one was not to be seen. While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement.
By the CORONER. - The morning was rather a chilly one. Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen." - Robert Paul

[Fiver]

The two are not mutually exclusive. Spitalfields and Covent Garden Markets both dealt in fruit and veg, so a firm of carters based in Spitalfields might have dealings with both markets.

You are still making a series of assumptions, starting with where Paul was a carman.

"It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market." - Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, Sunday, 2 September, 1888."

"Robert Baul, 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road." - The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, 18 September, 1888."

The two accounts differ about where Paul worked. You're trying to combine the two while not taking the second a face value. Cobbett's Cort is near Spitalfields Market. It is not Spitalfields Market. Paul could have said Spitalfields Market if he meant it. And there was a Tobacco Manufactory at Hanbury and Corbett's Court. People normally deliver produce from where it was grown to a market or from a market to a home or restaurant, not between markets. And if they did, they could have used a goods train.

You've laid into other people for making far fewer assumptions than you did here.

[Fiver]

The Lechmerians have to cloak their suspect in the mantle of Hannibal Lecter and other fantastical villains for this to be a working theory.

This is a key point. Fisherman has repeatedly made claims about what psychopaths are like. I have repeatedly shown he was wrong by linking to the statements of actual psychologists and psychiatrists. And Fisherman has repeatedly dodged the facts and failed to acknowledge that his version of serial killers only exists in works of fiction.

[Newbie]

If Lechmere had carried on walking to work when he first saw Paul I don't think the police would have been able to identify him. All you've got at very best is an occupation and an approximate height - a description applicable to hundreds if not thousands of men. How do the police ID Lechmere from that? If he's interviewed he just has to say he didn't walk down that street on his way to work - how do they prove otherwise?

They would have had a description, occupation (perhaps), and a street, direction & time by which he walked to work.
If half motivated, they'd stake an agent out along Buck's road or Whitechapel around 3:45 am and pickup anyone fitting the description.
If completely motivated, Pickford's would be one of the first places they' go to, checking employees with Paul in tow for identification.

Lechmere had to go to work; whether innocent or guilty, following Paul was his best option.

[Newbie]

Even PC Mizen, not the brightest bulb on the tree, immediately recognized that CAL was a carman based on how he was dressed. There was no chance of hiding his vocation, but the 1891 Census lists over 150,000 carmen in England. Hiding his identity would have been simple, just never come forward and alter his route to work.


Sneaking away from Paul was an option before Paul reached Nichols body. It would have been the smart thing for the killer to do.

Separating from Paul before they found a police officer would have been easy - Lechmere would have just had to say it would improve their chances of finding a policeman sooner. Separating would have been the smart thing for the killer to do.



This makes no sense. Lechmere, innocent or guilty, would have no reason to suspect Paul would embellish the incident. And the killer would have been just fine with Paul embellishing the incident - the more false things that Paul said, the harder it would be for the police to determine the truth.



Back in Post #2905 you said that Lechmere "apparently chooses to be the one to go up to PC Mizen and do the explaining".

It's Schroderingers Suspect again - you simultaneously believe Lechmere did and did not take the lead about contacting a police constable and you assume both of these contradictory views prove Lechmer was guilty.

So we are in agreement that determining the vocation was easy: very good. The 150,000 carmen figure is impressive - but dishonest; one would not be searching all of England for the guy - just Whitechapel; and then they would narrow that down to the direction he seemingly was going, Broad Street & the Railroad station: the numbers would settle down.

Sneaking away from Paul would have been stupid. If Paul went to the police, he would have mentioned the first witness to have arrived at the body, and they would end up wondering about the guy, and why he never approached a P.C. (as you would have him promise to do if he was the killer).

You would expect a stranger to provide an accurate accounting of an event where you were discovered next to a dead woman at 4am? Bully for you...most people wouldn't. By saying it, I was just fleshing out alternate motives for Lechmere (if not the killer) to follow Paul. You being so triggered by any and everything, you imagined it was another means to implicate the guy....and you say that i'm biased. That is funny.
Its tiresome and a waste of time responding to one who is going to attempt to kick up dirt on every punctuation mark. Choose one or two things most salient to your point next time.

This last part:

"back in Post #2905 you said that Lechmere "apparently chooses to be the one to go up to PC Mizen and do the explaining".

It's Schroderingers Suspect again - you simultaneously believe Lechmere did and did not take the lead about contacting a police constable and you assume both of these contradictory views prove Lechmer was guilty."

is in the 'what the hell are you trying to say?'category.
Attempting to read your mind, i'm guessing that what you are trying to say is that by Lechmere being inclined to take the lead and then not making the decision to go off for a PC is a contradiction. Why the hell would the killer want to fetch the police? You can't possibly mean this?

As for touching the hands and feeling the forehead, and calling that an examination of the body....that is laughably insufficient.
Then Lechmere moves out of the way and lets Paul do the serious work, checking for a pulse and breathing.
And that's Lechmere's statement: Paul voids him from doing anything.

Again:
1. Lechmere aggressively accosts Paul in the street
2. Lechmere stands aside and lets Paul do the examination
3. Lechmere is the one addressing the officer, while Paul interjects a comment.
4. Lechmere, once indirectly outed in the Newspaper, goes to the police...instead of waiting for them to come to him.

One of those does not match the other actions.

What a decent citizen would have done is wait by the body for a PC, and let Paul seek someone.
Pretty simple. Of course, being scurrilous is no indication that he was the killer; but it does place him in a new light as opposed to honest Lech.

[Newbie]

Your statement is just as false as when Fisherman posted it. Robert Paul still contradicts Fisherman.

"They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met. He could not see whether the clothes were torn, and did not feel any other part of her body except the hands and face. They looked to see if there was a constable, but one was not to be seen. While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement.
By the CORONER. - The morning was rather a chilly one. Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen." - Robert Paul

That is Lechmere's statement.
Paul, in his statement to the newspaper, made it clear that it was his decision to leave;
Lechmere fashions the decision into one that was mutual and simultaneous between the two.
Since they really hadn't ascertained enough about the woman's condition,
it would be strange that they both simultaneously decided at that point to leave the woman.

One had to first propose the idea, and the other consented.
Lechmere very easily could have testified that it was he who made the decision, if it were true.
He didn't (& one would imagine he was familiar with the few specifics of Paul's statement)

[FrankO]

Sorry to butt in, Fiver...

That is Lechmere's statement.
Paul, in his statement to the newspaper, made it clear that it was his decision to leave;

I’m afraid it isn’t Lechmere’s, Newbie.

From Paul’s statement in the Daily News of 18 September: “He and the man discussed what was best to be done, and they decided that they ought to acquaint the first policeman they met with what they had discovered.”
From the St. James Gazette of same date: “They agreed that the best course to pursue was to tell the first policeman they met.”
From the Times of same date: “They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met.”
From the Woodford Times of 21 September: “He and the man discussed what was best to be done, and they decided that they ought to acquaint the first policeman they met with what they had discovered.”
From the East London Advertiser of 22 September: “The other man and he agreed that the best thing to be done was to tell the first policeman they met.”

And this is what Paul actually said according to the Lloyd’s: “I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw.” Since we know Paul didn’t go on on his own, why should we believe he was the one to decide to go for the police? And if we add to that what I wrote in post #2910, it becomes even more dubious that Paul was the one who decided or suggested. In fact, as I wrote in that post, it seems that Lechmere was the one who suggested and not Paul.

Of course, Lechmere could have lied about it, but that wouldn’t be very smart, not knowing if Paul would or wouldn’t appear at the inquest later to contradict him and make him out to be a liar.

And why would it be useful for Lechmere to lie about this to begin with? How would not having actually suggested it make him look bad?

The best,
Frank

[Greenway]

They would have had a description, occupation (perhaps),

The street was very dark - if Lechmere had turned his back to Paul and walked away as soon as he was aware of him the police would have at best a description consisting of a 'carman around a certain height', and the height estimate could only be approximate given the circumstances.

and a street, direction & time by which he walked to work.

How do the police know the suspect is on his way to work? He might start work at 6 a.m., and could have left home 2 hours early to go and murder someone on the other side of town. He might only be dressed as a carman to give the police a false lead if there are witnesses.

If half motivated, they'd stake an agent out along Buck's road or Whitechapel around 3:45 am and pickup anyone fitting the description.

Why would they assume the killer walks past the scene of the crime at the same time it was committed every morning? And even if he did in the past he would be foolish in the extreme to do so in future.

If completely motivated, Pickford's would be one of the first places they' go to, checking employees with Paul in tow for identification.

If they were clairvoyant they might go to Pickford's - in reality the description could be applicable to thousands of men. The chances of Paul picking Lechmere out of a lineup (of thousands) after seeing him from behind for a few moments, from 20 yards away (probably more), in a very dark street are non-existent IMO.

Lechmere had to go to work; whether innocent or guilty, following Paul was his best option.

Following Paul was absolutely his worst option if he was the killer - going to the police was his best option if he was innocent.

[The Baron]

Following Paul was absolutely his worst option if he was the killer - going to the police was his best option if he was innocent.

And that is the common sense, the natural enemy of the Lechmere theory.


Good post!



The Baron

[Harry D]

Following Paul was absolutely his worst option if he was the killer - going to the police was his best option if he was innocent.

Yes, succinctly put.

The Lechmerians presume that their suspect was never properly investigated. Frankly, we don't know. Let's assume one of the division was as suspicious of Lechmere as Fisherman et al. By coming forward and volunteering his personal details, Lechmere was making it very easy for the police to tail him. That's the last thing any serial killer would want to risk, let alone one who was just starting out (in Whitechapel at least). This is particularly dubious when you consider that Lechmere had several opportunities to escape without anyone ever knowing who he was but he wilfully chose to eschew them. Hence why the theorists have to describe this as "psychopathic" behaviour, despite the fact it doesn't conform to any known serial killer in history. Fisherman likes to trot out the example of Jeffrey Dahmer approaching witnesses who were helping one of his escapees, but for obvious reasons this is a complete false analogy.